Veterans Golf Park for Disabled Veterans
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 453545009
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2024–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2014, Form 990-N 2023
- Location
- Citrus Hts, CA, USA
- Phone
- 9168064852
- Rating
- 38
- Verdict
- REVIEW
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Human Service Organizations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $77,479
- Expenses
- $51,674
- Assets
- $710,805
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
25 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Michelle Grant (CEO President Secretary Director)
- Laurie Thornton (Vice President Affairs Director)
People named in this filing
- Michelle Grant (CEO President Secretary Director)
- Laurie Thornton (Vice President Affairs Director)
- Vince Robles (Director Advisory Facilities Manager)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Our program is dedicated to supporting the emotional and physiological well-being of military service members through the assembly of camaraderie. By creating a safe space for veterans to decompress and connect with others who share similar experiences we aim to address the challenges of PTSD depression and loneliness often associated with disabilities and life after service. Our daily midday meals cater to up to 150 veterans five days a week offering not only sustenance but also a sense of community. Furthermore our facility hosts a range of recreational activities and entertainment to enhance the overall experience. We work closely with the Department of Veterans Affairs providing onsite representatives to assist veterans in navigating and accessing their entitled benefits ensuring they receive the support they deserve.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 0
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 18
- Sustainability: 73
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
- Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 33.3%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 13.76; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 7.5% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 10.6% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 0 of 10 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $52K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 25 people listed
- Consistency: 37 of 44 current checks pass · 7 findings to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
- People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Advertising column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX AllOtherExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesLegal column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Insurance column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Occupancy column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.